🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile opponents of President Trump obtained major court wins on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the government's charges against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, asserting that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's invalid appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the government to try again.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What is ex-FBI director James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the decision, saying he believes Trump will probably come after him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the DOJ faces steep hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and experts are reluctant to predict what could occur next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

It feels to me like unexplored legal ground, said Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the DOJ challenge the ruling?

The DOJ can contest the judge's decision before a higher appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would take this route, vowing to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeals process unclear.

Is it possible there be new charges?

The government accused James Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with financial fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Each entered not guilty pleas. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to convene new grand juries and obtain new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could present James's case to a new grand jury and get a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

But John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly in the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an indictment.

He described the complex web of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no simple answers.

It might be more difficult for the DOJ to try to file the exact same charges against James Comey.

A key issue is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict him for these specific allegations – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it intends to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that because the indictment is void, the time limit has expired and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

The judge stated in the James decision that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Ms. Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was invalid.

Therefore, she had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how people can be assigned on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these regulations.

This makes Halligan's position on future cases against both individuals, again, unclear.

The decision might also raise doubts on any other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia where she works.

But Bondi said on that day that she made her a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.